The notion that a cofounder has some secret sauce that gives the government the authority and power to do something like this is a great way to drive clicks. But it ain't gonna break up facebook.
Wikipedia tells me Hughes hasn't been involved with Facebook for 12 years, since he left in 2007. A lot can change in that period. It's hard to imagine Hughes providing a "smoking gun".
Note: As I understand it, anti-trust litigation isn't based on stuff a company did long ago to get into a commanding position, it is based a company having and abusing a commanding position. What does someone who left long ago know about this?
>A lot can change in that period. It's hard to imagine Hughes providing a "smoking gun".
I see it the opposite way: any forensic examination of the business lines in an IT-only operation can benefit greatly from institutional memory such as Hughes can provide and few if any other cooperators could. The "why" of business processes are often quickly obscured/lost by successive operations and if the company is a candidate for breakup, old decisions often speak to demarcations where business lines can be reasonably separated. Of course, the company's counsel would never admit to any reasonable theory of separation, so old execs are kind of essential to the examination.
>Note: As I understand it, anti-trust litigation isn't based on stuff a company did long ago, it is based a company having and abusing a commanding position. What does someone who left long ago know about this?
They know the why and all of the how and the when, which allows anyone interested in breaking up the company to put their fingers on the hidden fault lines buried by successive layers of years of "new normal" at the company.
I read this in a similar way as the Mueller hearing: there wasn’t anything added by having a senior civil servant be read his own findings in open court, and confirm that he did write that. Little of what Hugues can say, which is essentially his latest OpEds, gains being formally processed by the administration.
But it gives press attention to an interesting effort, and Hugues can repeat what I think is his key point: Mark is a genuinely well-intended, value-driven and well-informed person; however, that doesn’t matter, monopolies are dangerous, even in the hands of Mr Rogers. And Hugues understand social media better than most regulators and can recommend better principles, like inter-operability, and give context, notably on abuse control.
not on its own, but it could help move along anti-trust or whatever litigation: recall that an intel VP was brought in to testify against microsoft in that ordeal, so imagine what effects an insider with (presumably) evidence and an agenda could have.
There was no breakup because the courts laughed the government out of the room. In the end, they ended up having to negotiate with M$, and there was an agreement to allow other browsers on M$ operating systems. Basically it was laughable. But the law is the law.
And that would be why we need to change the law. Going after digital companies using laws set up to regulate non-digital companies, is just the height of foolishness. You would think the M$ experience would have taught people? But I guess not.
In your opinion, what would have been the positive effects of breaking up Microsoft? Other browsers would have beaten explorer more quickly than they did? Something else?
The government doesn't need the authority and power, it already has it, Facebook could be turned off tomorrow if the government decided it wanted to do so. What it needs is a plan and motivation to do so.
If Facebook was turned off tomorrow, they'd be at the steps of the Supreme Court faster than you can say "due process." The FTC could barely enforce baseline info security reqs without the Third Circuit knocking that agency on its backside. With a pro-business SCOTUS and the type of leverage this company has on every Senate and House race in America, I really don't think you're using the word "power" the same way I was if you believe the government has enough to make this happen.
- The government is empowered to change the constitution, including disbanding the supreme court.
- The vast majority of the time Congress passing an explicit law instead of an agency making some rules would satisfy the existing supreme court with the existing constitution anyways.
Not authority, the article just claims that Hughes is giving them information to use when building their case.